Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Five countries – the U. S., Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand – were forced to bend over and spread ’em as a result of the U. S. forcing its ‘allies’ to conform to Benjamin Netanyahu’s ‘war on terror’ in the wake of the September 11 attacks. All five victims of Zionist propaganda had to create horrific Orwellian legislation to oppress Muslims (Muslims are, of course, the direct target of the ‘war on terror’ legislation). Now, Canada is taking the long road back to freedom.

The Canadian legislation contained a ‘sunset’ clause which required Parliament to reconsider the worst parts of the legislation, passed after September 11, 2001, in five years. Liberal leader Stéphane Dion deserves enormous credit for resisting the enormous – and I mean enormous – pressure from the Zionist lobby withinhis own party, and holding fast to his principles (if you don’t believe me, read how a Zionist puts the issue; Dion’s selection as Liberal leader really was a massive defeat for the Jewish Billionaires Club, who are trying to get their revenge by having their media catamites claim Dion isn’t doing well as Liberal leader). The governing Conservatives, representing the Israel Lobby and the jack-booted thugs distinguished members of the security establishment, desperately wanted to keep the draconian laws in place. The Liberals voted with the other two opposition parties to put an end to the two worst parts of the legislation.

Note in particular ultra-Zionist Irwin Cotler, who takes the position that the oppressive laws should stay as they have never been used. I suppose Cotler, who fancies himself an advocate of human rights (other than for Palestinians, of course), would support the passage of a death-penalty law for jaywalking, as long as the law is never used.

The reason the law was never used is that the authorities relied on provisions of the Immigration Act to detain Muslims. These obviously unconstitutional provisions were struck down by a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada last Friday. The problem with having obviously unconstitutional legislation on the books is twofold. First, the mere existence of such laws can be used as a threat against victims of the security establishment. Secondly, the victims of the unconstitutional laws languish in detention for years before the issue reaches the courts (assuming the victims can afford to pay to make it through the legal system).

Once freedom is lost it is very difficult to regain it. The Zionists and the jack-booted thugs distinguished members of the security establishment relied on fear to attempt to keep the legislation. Terrorist hell is supposed to break loose once there is any glimmer of freedom from oppression.

The ‘war on terror’ was created by Netanyahu and the Israeli right for three reasons:

It was supposed to replace the idea that Israel was the ally of the United States in the Middle East in the battle against the Soviets, by the idea that Israel was the ally of the United States in the Middle East in the battle against fundamentalist Islam (the shift was needed when the Soviet Union no longer existed).

It was intended to create the idea that Israel’s struggle against the justified reaction by the Palestinians to Israeli war crimes was the same struggle faced by the United States, and the world.

It has been extended to include the entire gamut of propaganda weapons which we know of as Islamophobia, intended to create a general fear of Islam which is used to make possible various Zionist outrages.

One of the Israeli spies caught while cheering at the collapse of the World Trade center put it clearly (my emphasis in red):

“We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.”

Netanyahu himself, on being asked about what the September 11 attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations, said:

“It's very good. Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.”

Make no mistake: the Canadian and similar oppressive laws are the gifts of Zionism to the world. One of the many payments the rest of the world makes for not stopping Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity is having to live under the burden of oppressive Zionist anti-Muslim legislation.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Jason Kunin summarizes (or here; see also here) the state of the worldwide Jewish movement against the worst policies of Israel. The Zionists haven’t (yet) completely destroyed the effectiveness of the ‘anti-Semite’ slur, so it is still safer for Jewish people to attack Israeli policies. Such attacks also put the lie to the myth that all Jewish people are completely behind what Israel does. Some examples of the brave and good:

Monday, February 26, 2007

In Seymour Hersh’s latest article passing on what the CIA thinks about the Middle East (I’m not being dismissive, as it is worth knowing what the CIA thinks), he does a cloak-and-dagger routine to meet the smartest man in the area (by far), Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah (my emphasis in red; super-emphasis in green):

“Nasrallah accused the Bush Administration of working with Israel to deliberately instigate fitna, an Arabic word that is used to mean ‘insurrection and fragmentation within Islam.’ ‘In my opinion, there is a huge campaign through the media throughout the world to put each side up against the other,’ he said. ‘I believe that all this is being run by American and Israeli intelligence.’ (He did not provide any specific evidence for this.) He said that the U.S. war in Iraq had increased sectarian tensions, but argued that Hezbollah had tried to prevent them from spreading into Lebanon. (Sunni-Shiite confrontations increased, along with violence, in the weeks after we talked.)

Nasrallah said he believed that President Bush’s goal was ‘the drawing of a new map for the region. They want the partition of Iraq. Iraq is not on the edge of a civil war – there is a civil war. There is ethnic and sectarian cleansing. The daily killing and displacement which is taking place in Iraq aims at achieving three Iraqi parts, which will be sectarian and ethnically pure as a prelude to the partition of Iraq. Within one or two years at the most, there will be total Sunni areas, total Shiite areas, and total Kurdish areas. Even in Baghdad, there is a fear that it might be divided into two areas, one Sunni and one Shiite.’

He went on, ‘I can say that President Bush is lying when he says he does not want Iraq to be partitioned. All the facts occurring now on the ground make you swear he is dragging Iraq to partition. And a day will come when he will say, ‘I cannot do anything, since the Iraqis want the partition of their country and I honor the wishes of the people of Iraq.’’

Nasrallah said he believed that America also wanted to bring about the partition of Lebanon and of Syria. In Syria, he said, the result would be to push the country ‘into chaos and internal battles like in Iraq.’ In Lebanon, ‘There will be a Sunni state, an Alawi state, a Christian state, and a Druze state.’ But, he said, ‘I do not know if there will be a Shiite state.’ Nasrallah told me that he suspected that one aim of the Israeli bombing of Lebanon last summer was ‘the destruction of Shiite areas and the displacement of Shiites from Lebanon. The idea was to have the Shiites of Lebanon and Syria flee to southern Iraq,’ which is dominated by Shiites. ‘I am not sure, but I smell this,’ he told me.

Partition would leave Israel surrounded by ‘small tranquil states,’ he said. ‘I can assure you that the Saudi kingdom will also be divided, and the issue will reach to North African states. There will be small ethnic and confessional states,’ he said. ‘In other words, Israel will be the most important and the strongest state in a region that has been partitioned into ethnic and confessional states that are in agreement with each other. This is the new Middle East.’

In fact, the Bush Administration has adamantly resisted talk of partitioning Iraq, and its public stances suggest that the White House sees a future Lebanon that is intact, with a weak, disarmed Hezbollah playing, at most, a minor political role. There is also no evidence to support Nasrallah’s belief that the Israelis were seeking to drive the Shiites into southern Iraq. Nevertheless, Nasrallah’s vision of a larger sectarian conflict in which the United States is implicated suggests a possible consequence of the White House’s new strategy.

In the interview, Nasrallah made mollifying gestures and promises that would likely be met with skepticism by his opponents. ‘If the United States says that discussions with the likes of us can be useful and influential in determining American policy in the region, we have no objection to talks or meetings,’ he said. ‘But, if their aim through this meeting is to impose their policy on us, it will be a waste of time.’ He said that the Hezbollah militia, unless attacked, would operate only within the borders of Lebanon, and pledged to disarm it when the Lebanese Army was able to stand up. Nasrallah said that he had no interest in initiating another war with Israel. However, he added that he was anticipating, and preparing for, another Israeli attack, later this year.”

It is wise for Arab leaders to memorize Yinon’s writings and Wurmser’s Zionist Plan for the Middle East. Saudi leadership, by falling for the Israeli idea that Iran is the real danger, are leading to their own destruction. The plan is to replace the current Iranian leadership and then take over the Saudi oil fields, leaving the current Saudi royals in charge of the oil-less Islamic holy areas. By supporting the Zionist campaign against Iran, the Saudis are just hastening their own marginalization as leaders of a ‘small tranquil’ statelet.

Hersh quotes Leslie Gelb, who has recently been shilling his infamous Yinon-inspired plan to break Iraq up into three statelets. In another ‘debate’ between ultra-ultra-ultra-Zionist Gelb, and ultra-Zionist Indyk (like the presentation recently arranged by House Democrats, where a group of ultra-Zionists ‘debated’ whether it would be better to kill the Palestinians by starving them to death, or shooting them), note the Gelb joke in response to a question:

“QUESTIONER: I’m Ragida Dergham, Al Hayat. Les, yes, I also have been speaking to several – I’m sure they are just as credible as the Kurds you’ve been speaking to, and are very afraid of a landlocked Kurdistan independent state at this point, in a very unfriendly neighborhood. So my question to you is, you must be aware of the fact that this idea of dividing Iraq into three states really has been going around in the last few months, from different circles. The fact that you put it in writing gave it a different dimension, in fact, a harmful one amongst Iraqis, they are interpreting it as, this is what the United States is going to do to us. And I’m wondering if you have given this a thought, knowing that the idea came from the neo-conservatives, extremists amongst them, you put it out there, and as a continuity of what has been heard in the Arab world, that Saudi Arabia will be next to be divided. This is what I’d like you to address, why on earth did you do it?

GELB: I actually did it as part of the neo-conservative, Zionist, Jewish conspiracy.”

It’s no joke – Gelb is the real deal, part of the Cabal. Gelb fits right in to the Big Conspiracy to remove the oil weapon from the Arabs and put Israel in permanent charge of the Middle East (if you want a laugh, read this article linked to in the piece by Larsson). The Muslims, and in particular the Saudis, should stop fighting each other, and recognize what Nasrallah knows, that their real enemy is, and always will be, Zionist Israel.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

The latest Chomsky interview is hopeless, but he inadvertently knocks one out of the park (my emphasis in red):

“We’re supposed to believe that oil had nothing to do with it, that if Iraq were exporting pickles or jelly and the center of world oil production were in the South Pacific that the United States would’ve liberated them anyway. It has nothing to do with the oil, what a crass idea. Anyone with their head screwed on knows that that can’t be true. Allowing an independent and sovereign Iraq could be a nightmare for the United States. It would mean that it would be Shi’ite-dominated, at least if it’s minimally democratic. It would continue to improve relations with Iran, just what the United States doesn’t want to see. And beyond that, right across the border in Saudi Arabia where most of Saudi oil is, there happens to be a large Shi’ite population, probably a majority.

Moves toward sovereignty in Iraq stimulate pressures first for human rights among the bitterly repressed Shi’ite population but also toward some degree of autonomy. You can imagine a kind of a loose Shi’ite alliance in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, controlling most of the world’s oil and independent of the United States.”

Chomsky presents this Shi’ite alliance as the ultimate nightmare for the American Establishment, but it is in fact the final stage of Wurmser’s Zionist Plan for the Middle East. After decades of supporting Saddam’s Sunni government as the sole bulwark against Shi’ite dominance of Middle East oil, why the hell would the American Establishment suddenly decide to remove Saddam and let the Shi’ites control everything? On the other hand, this is the ultimate Zionist goal, to remove the ‘oil weapon’ from the Sunnis and put it in the hands of moderate Shi’ites. The plan, which continues despite a few temporary Lobby problems in the United States, is to put Saudi, Iranian and Iraqi oil fields in the hands of Shi’ites, who will form a covert alliance with Israel and thus remove the oil weapon from those who might want to curtail Zionist imperialism.

Let me invent a new term: azionist. Azionist analysis is the study of the Middle East without considering the role of Zionism or Israel, and Chomsky is its champion. People are finding it increasingly difficult to argue that the attack on Iraq was about getting Iraqi oil, given that the upshot of the attack was essentially to destroy Iraqi oil production capability (the oil companies knew this would happen, which is why they were against the attack, and draft Iraqi laws don’t prove anything unless: a) there is oil to pump, and b) the draft law is passed, which it won’t be). Similarly, nuking Iran isn’t going to help Iranian oil production (though Chomsky’s latest conspiracy theory is that the plan will be to turn the Iranian oil fields over to local Arabs). The shift from getting oil to controlling oil is supposed to explain everything, including how the Establishment will benefit from the various Zionist schemes, but it remains to be seen how removing much of the world’s oil production is supposed to benefit the people who make their trillions from selling oil and the things made from oil. It’s odd that the only spokesmen against attacking Iran are the representatives of the very Establishment which is supposed, on azionist analysis, to be behind everything, including the supposed upcoming attack on Iran.

Analysts are (slowly) coming around to the view that Iran isn’t going to be attacked, at least not by the Americans, but are having grave troubles justifying their new world view given their doctrinaire adherence to azionism. Since they couldn’t mention Israel in the build-up to war, they can’t mention Israel as war becomes unlikely.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that everybody, both left and right, is in thrall to the analysis of the waxy guy in the glass box, V. I. Lenin. Lenin’s wholesale analysis appeals to academics, as it appears to give structure, and thus intellectual legitimacy, to what is after all just an educated guess. I’m sticking with my conspiracy analysis that everything the Bush Administration does can be explained on three grounds, not necessarily in order of importance:

political power, and its retention;

money (this is the necessary, and sufficient, explanation for Cheney’s involvement; whatever happened to those Halliburton options, anyway?); and

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Last summer, Israel attacked Lebanon. The American Christian Right immediately, and predictably, leapt to the defense of the aggressor. There was one very prominent exception: the National Association of Evangelicals. The leader of that group, which represents almost 30 million people, was the Rev. Ted Haggard, who said:

“Our silence is not a rejection of Israel or even a hesitation about Israel. Our silence is to try to protect people. There's a rapidly growing evangelical population in virtually every Islamic country. Much of it is underground in the countries that are more radicalized, and many of the Christians survive based on their neighbors just ignoring the fact that they don't go to mosque.”

This failure to ‘stand for’ Israel drew the usual rebukes from the fruitcakes. While the Southern Baptists also kept a low (or here) profile, it was the National Association of Evangelicals which made an issue out of rejecting the usual knee-jerk support for the Zionists. Most of the usual blow-hard Evangelical leaders made a big show of supporting Israel.

Israel has carefully built the unlikely coalition with American Evangelicals since the late 70’s, and there is a great fear that this alliance will fall apart, and with it American support for Israeli genocide. The new alternative is called replacement theology or supersessionism, and it terrifies the Zionists (see here, for the kind of thinking it leads to). Of course, the actions of people like Haggard were partly based on the fact that the main target of Zionist murdering in south Lebanon was Christian communities (in fact, the first Christian communities).

Within a couple months of Haggard’s anti-Zionist apostasy, he was forced out of his church and his leadership roles on the basis of allegations of gay sex and drug use made by an accuser who failed a polygraph test (with an interesting background including a ‘run in’ with the law, and a recent bankruptcy). While it is fun to mock the fact that Haggard is said to be now ‘cured’ of ‘teh gay’, it is worth noting that Haggard was relatively liberal (he supported gay ‘civil unions’, and thought global warming was an important issue, ideas that would have killed most of the fruitcakes). The conspiracy theory was that Haggard was forced out by the Gay Establishment because of his opposition to gay marriage. Given his very liberal attitudes towards homosexuality, at least by Christian fruitcake standards, he seems to be an odd target. A far more likely reason for his crucifixion was that he was leading the beginnings of a rift between American Evangelicals and Zionism.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

The latest disturbing trend on the internet is the creation, or threatened creation, of mega-conspiracy theories as an attempt to provide cover for the malign influence of Zionism on the United States and the Middle East. The idea is that it isn’t the Zionists, it is some shadowy, undefined group, ‘Illuminati’ if you will, that is really behind all the machinations. Indeed, Chomsky’s theory that the American Establishment is really the root cause of everything is just a particularly addled version of the mega-theory, with the added implied fillip that the Establishment is so clever that it set up the Jews to take the fall by putting them in such prominent positions of power in the Bush Administration (the Establishment make it even better by having prominent Establishment figures plaintively complain about American policies!).

These theories give conspiracy theory a bad name. On the other hand, good conspiracy theories will have three features:

Specificity.

Predictiveness.

Falsifiability.

I want my conspiracy theory to look like a criminal indictment. I want it to name names, and provide detailed particulars of the crimes involved. For example, I want to be able to identify specific Zionists in positions of power in the Bush Administration, Zionists who have written papers commissioned by the Israeli extreme right to plan Zionist colonialism, which papers contain detailed plans which have subsequently been followed, to the letter, as a result of actions taken by the specified Zionists. I want to be able to identify specific huge donors to the Democratic Party, followed by bizarrely one-sided actions by the same party regarding the Middle East. I want to see specificexamples of the power of money in repressing what appears to be mainstream Establishment thought. I want to know why specific Establishment voices, like Carter and Brzezinski, are marginalized if the American Establishment actually runs everything.

If my conspiracy theory refers to an ongoing issue, I want it to provide predictions of future events. For example, if the specific plans don’t mention an attack on Iran, because in fact Iran doesn’t lie on the territory of Greater Israel and because Iran is an obvious doctrine-of-the-periphery ally of Israel, I want to be able to make the prediction that the Zionist-controlled United States won’t attack Iran.

I want my conspiracy theory to be falsifiable. Chomsky, who should know better, has a totally unfalsifiable world-view. If X happens, it is because the American Establishment wanted it to happen and arranged for it. If negative-X happens, same thing. There is no imaginable set of facts which could disprove the Chomskian meta-conspiracy theory. Similarly, there is no conceivable set of facts which will disprove the grand ‘Illuminati’ theories. Since we can’t even identify who these illuminated ones are, or what their plan is, we can’t come up with any set of facts which would disprove the theory that they control everything.

Generally, the suspect theorists have a fascination with a number of specific topics. The most prominent of these are Satanism, mind control, sexual abuse of children, the ‘occult’ and its most charismatic figures, and UFOs (the ‘testimony’ of obvious schizophrenics is often the evidence relied upon in these areas). The most deft (or daft) of these theorists will pretend that they are really only interested in the ‘meta’ aspects of these old CIA-promulgated tabloid fabrications, but they will quickly and cleverly shift from considering the psychological/sociological/economic/political aspects of these ideas to being ‘True Believers’. There are deep theological roots to this kind of magical thinking, having to do with the idea that the Devil is the agent of Discord, uncertainty, and confusion. Some political agents, e. g., Ledeen, actually like to hide their real goals behind a façade that they are just general sowers of discord and shit-disturbers, without any real intentions or values other than stirring the pot.

Unfortunately, this kind of magical-thinking nonsense has a big audience in the conspiracy circles. It would all be just clean fun if it didn’t hide what is really going on, and allow the perpetrators of some horrible crimes to continue their schemes.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Jim Lobe notes the deep contrast between the current neocon propaganda war against Iran and the neocon propaganda war which led to the attack on Iraq. The differences are even more striking if you consider the propaganda coming from the Bush Administration itself. The lies about Iraq were ubiquitous and unrelenting. There was essentially no dissent from the Bush Administration position, either in the reporting of the mainstream media or the statements of the spokesmodels for the Administration.

Iran is completely different. The lies are coming from anonymous sources, as if nobody wants to be associated with them. The New York Times has them re-typed by the joke named MichaelGordon (Pinocchio has a more credible by-line, and it is as if some trickster in the Times is trying to subvert the Zionist lies of the ownership by having someone as obvious as Gordon do the re-typing). Important officials, often strikingly from the higher levels of the Pentagon (hardly an anti-war crowd), are obviously off-message. Even Bush can’t keep a consistent hard-line position.

The deep structure of the propaganda war is different. Remember Feith and the lies produced by the office of Special Plans? There is an equivalent lying group for Iran, but there is nothing like the same quantity and quality of ‘stovepiping’. Indeed, almost all the manipulation of intelligence, which formed the base story of the preamble to the attack on Iraq, is missing. So what’s going on?

I think Bush is trying to satisfy two masters. A passive-aggressive drunk like Bush can’t say no to anybody. The Zionists, both Christian and Jewish, blood dripping – as always – from their fangs, are screaming for yet another murderous attack. At the same time, Bush’s father’s friends have decided that American Establishment interests require an obvious effort by the U. S. to calm the Middle East. Bush tells the Zionists he is working as fast as he can within the limits of the powerful anti-Semites around him. The propaganda war, such as it is, is intended to make it seem that he is doing something for them. On the other hand, he is telling his father’s friends not to worry, that he is managing the Zionists. The ‘surge’ and the usual abandonment of the Palestinians is the sop he is throwing to the Zionists to assuage their lust for blood while he delays them on Iran.

Of course, if Bush keeps delaying, the Establishment wins and the Zionists lose. The Establishment feels comfortable that they can avert the ultimate disaster of an attack on Iran, but fears a traitorous Gulf of Tonkin incident arranged by Zionists in the Gulf (thus the peculiar ‘conspiracy theory’ warning by Brzezinski).

The history of American Establishment views is interesting in itself, and also explains the blood-thirstiness of American Zionists. The recent military loss of Israel in Lebanon was a disaster for Israel for many reasons, not the least of which was that it highlighted to the American Establishment, asleep at the wheel for years, that:

Israel’s judgment could no longer be trusted; and

Israel’s interests in the Middle East were not the same as American Establishment interests, and constant Israeli meddling in aid of Zionist colonialism would soon imperil American money, thus necessitating a change in American policy towards the Middle East.

Suddenly, in the wake of Lebanon, the Walt-Mearsheimer paper made perfect sense. The only other time in the last thirty years that the United States hasn’t blindly followed Zionist policies in the Middle East came after the previous disastrous attack by Israel on Lebanon (unrelenting Israeli avarice for Lebanese land and water may end up being the real cause of the end of Israel). That small window of American sanity and independence in the 80’s came at the instance of a Reagan Administration official named James Baker!

The history explains why the American Zionists are so crazed about Iran, sometimes literally, in the case of Pipes and Dershowitz, foaming at the mouth like rabid dogs. The Zionists have put all their eggs in the basket of American support. Israel, easily the most hated nation in the world, has only one friend, and apparently no prospect of any others. Everybody, including the Zionists, knows that Iran poses no real threat to Israel. If Iran is very lucky in its science, changes its research interests, and has no moderation in its politics for the next ten years, there is a small chance that it might end up with a few bombs that would create, at most, the beginnings of mutually assured destruction with Israel and its nukes. So why all the Zionist preoccupation with Iran? The United States has to ‘prove its love’. The insecure Zionists quite properly fear the loss of American servitude. Israel keeps setting higher and higher tests for the Americans to follow if they are to remain tools of the Zionists. Lebanon was such a test and, for the first time ever, the Americans failed to take the Israeli bait. Thus the need to create the most insane test of all, an attack on Iran that would permanently destroy American wealth and power.

Saturday, February 17, 2007

In the last six months, we’ve made enormous advances in understanding the unwholesome hold that Zionists have over the American government, and I am optimistic that the truth will continue to come out (six months from now, people behind the curve are going to look quite silly). Just recently, those who were brave enough to point out the massive influence of the Lobby weren’t just considered to be mistaken, or even crazy. The issue was literally unspeakable (at least in polite society). Zionism was the hate that dare not speak its name. The Zionists don’t yet realize that they lost the battle and the war once these issues became debatable.

The United States is currently under a Zionist Occupation Government. Still don’t believe me? This past week the Democrats started to exercise their newly acquired power with a hearing of the Middle East Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the ‘next steps in the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process.’ Do you think they invited Jimmy Carter? Bishop Tutu? Nelson Mandela? An neutral expert on the Middle East? A Palestinian? Nope. The three invitees – the only three invitees – were (drum roll, please):

Daniel Pipes (who, it is claimed, was forced on the committee as a witness by the Republicans);

Martin Indyk; and

David Makovsky.

Makovsky works for the ultra-Zionists atWINEP (the Lobby’s think tank). Indyk, the original founder of WINEP and a former research director at AIPAC, is the Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution (Saban is the Israeli who is biggestdonor to the Democrats and thus the leading member of the Jewish Billionaires Club). I really don’t need to describe Daniel “brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene” Pipes. Indyck comes across as moderate but non-committal, Makovsky as a complete hard-ass, and Pipes as absolutely, over-the-top, insane. I imagine the three of them arriving at the hearing arm-in-arm, deftly performing Jewish folk dances, singing Hava Nagila, waving the Israeli flag, and sporting their medals from Israeli for service to Zionist colonialism. For guys like these, a ‘debate’ about the Palestinians consists of a discussion of the appropriate caliber of ammunition to use to shoot Palestinian children in the face. It is not unreasonable to wonder why all the witnesses are on one side of the issue (and for similar shenanigans – more of the ‘diet plan’ – from the same bunch of politicians, see here). Is Congress just the New Knesset?

From the comments to the excellent note by Daniel Levy linked to above (and see also here), I select that of madison1776(emphasis throughout in red):

“So the Jewish Committee chair Tom Lantos (Likud-CA) and the Subcommittee chair Gary Ackerman (Likud-NY) will hold a hearing on the I-P conflict with David Makovsky (a former US citizen now an Israeli who works for the AIPAC cutout, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy), Martin Indyk (an Australian brought to the US by indicted AIPAC spy, Steve Rosen, to work as his assistant at AIPAC and somehow became a US citizen and our ambassador to (not from) Israel) and Daniel Pipes (National Socialist-Philadelphia).Thar's it! No Arab-Americans. No Palestinians. Not even one goddam gentile.Is this a joke.AND by the way, the staff director of the committee is David Makovsky's brother, Alan Makovsky.I am not making this up.”

and Mark Weinberg:

“This in nuts. As a Jew and a Zionist, I believe that this type of arrogance – using the US congress as a venue to promote right-wing zionist propaganda – is going to blow up in all our faces someday.How dare they? Does it ever occur to Lantos or Ackerman that they are Americans (sort of, in Lantos's case) and should act like it.This is truly disgusting. Read ‘The Truth About Camp David’ by Clanton Swisher to find out whose these characters are.God, as a Jew, this is just embarrassing. It's like a bunch of Catholics holding hearings on birth control with the witnesses being Father Mulcahy, Msgr. Herlihy, and Cardinal O'Connor.Madison 1776 is mad. The real Madison would puke.”

I really have to wonder what evidence would be required to prove the existence of the ZOG to those hold-outs who still refuse to believe it.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

I’ve been thinking more about the idea that the Palestinians need a Marshall Plan to get them back on their feet (I think it should be called the Carter Plan as Jimmy was the guy brave enough to bear the wrath of the Lobby and write some of the truth about Israel). Unfortunately, the reason it will never happen is that it is such a good idea. Simultaneously, the United States would regain almost all of the goodwill it has lost in recent years (it would also have to get its troops out of Iraq), the Palestinians would have a chance at building a normal and prosperous country, and the Israelis would lose most of their security concerns as the Palestinians would have better things to do than to be angry at Israel.

It will require an enormous amount of money to undo the damage caused by the Israelis. Even if Israel completely withdraws from the Occupied Territories, the minimum step required for peace in the Middle East, it will leave behind a society so battered by years of Zionist brutality that there is a real danger of it falling into radicalism. This was exactly the thinking behind the Marshall Plan: restoring Europe to prosperity was regarded by American planners as necessary to keep the Europeans out of the ideological sway of the Soviets.

How would the Americans pay for it? Obvious, isn’t it? The Americans would simply have to redirect some of the billions of dollars in aid it gives to Israel each year. Israel won’t need it, as peace with the Palestinians will greatly reduce the real Israeli need for military expenditures (just think of the money Israel would save in not having to use the IDF to brutalize the Palestinians). The net outlay for the United States would be about the same (but would have an end, unlike the never-ending parasitism of Israel), but instead of buying world-wide enmity, the Americans would restore their lost reputation, largely originally built by the Marshall Plan, as being a beacon of hope for the world. If Americans need a big project other than starting wars, the Carter Plan would be a good place to start.

From a good article by Uri Averny on what Olmert is up to with his various provocations (my emphasis in red):

“. . . most Israeli archaeologists have always been the loyal foot-soldiers of the official propaganda. Since the emergence of modern Zionism, they have been engaged in a desperate endeavor to ‘find’ archaeological evidence for the historical truth of the stories of the Old Testament. Until now, they have gone empty-handed: there exists no archaeological proof for the exodus from Egypt, the conquest of Canaan and the kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon. But in their eagerness to prove the unprovable (because in the opinion of the vast majority of archaeologists and historians outside Israel - and also some in Israel - the Old Testament stories are but sacred myths), the archaeologists have destroyed many strata of other periods.”

Biblical archaeology is the biggest pile of bullshit going. Actually, the Christian Zionists are even more to blame that the Israelis. They spend vast amounts of money funding quack ‘archaeologists’ who uncover various piles of rocks in the Middle East, and then breathlessly announce more ‘proof’ of the Bible. The reasoning is always entirely circular: the Bible contains a place name, I’ve found a pile of rocks in the Middle East which looks like the remains of human habitation, the pile must be the place named in the Bible, therefore the Bible is ‘proved’.

Of course, the Israeli efforts, involving a combination of lies, forgeries and wishful thinking, are in aid of providing some justification for why the Jews should be uniquely able to break international law and steal the land of another people.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Does anybody really believe that Americans have any interest in the minutiae of European sociology? The vast majority of Americans are only vaguely aware that any other countries actually exist. The recent spate of American books predicting that Europe is about to be overrun by crazed Muslims are not really books about Europe at all. They are written for Americans in order to continue the Zionist propaganda plan of instilling fear of Islam into Americans. It is not a coincidence that the books are about Europe being ‘overrun’ with Muslims, as that follows the Israeli preoccupation with its ‘demographic problem’. The key Zionist goal, as stated well by the Israeli spy caught on September 11, is to make Israel’s peculiar problems, caused by its own wrongdoing, into universal problems: “Your problems are our problems.” Thus the extension of the ‘war on terror’, Netanyahu’s idea, to plague the whole world, and the preoccupation with Europe’s phony ‘demographic problem’.

I understand that Jimmy Carter’s next book is going to be a survey of the hummingbirds of Georgia. Deborah Lipstadt will write a review praising Carter for his vivid description of the plumage, but noting that the book is fatally flawed for not mentioning the Holocaust. What if I robbed a bank and killed three people and ended up before a judge, who asked me if I had anything to say in mitigation of my sentence? Do you think I’d get somewhere if I described that I had a terrible childhood? Maybe. How far would I get if I explained my actions by telling the judge that my grandfather or great-grandfather had a terrible childhood?

I keep saying that the United States is not going to attack Iran, but nobody believes me (six months from now, I’m expecting everyone to congratulate me on my prescience). One good indicator is the propaganda being churned out by the Bush Administration. It lacks all the conviction of the Iraq lies, and, even more telling, the mainstream media reports on it while simultaneously mentioning both that there are opposing views (something we never saw in the build-up to Iraq), and that the Bush Administration told similar stories about Iraq, stories which were all untrue and which led Americans into a disaster. The American Establishment has obviously ordered its lackies to try to tell the truth this time. Iran is going to do just enough to remain on side of the international inspectors, which will give Europe the excuse it is looking for to pour cold water on the Zionist plans (the Zionists have their hands full convincing the Europeans to keep the new Palestinian government, and the Palestinian people, on the ‘diet plan’).

The exception to honest reporting on Iran is, of course, the laughable New York Times. It went through the whole Judy Miller fiasco, refused to examine itself, was finally embarrassed into doing so, and ended up with an agonized process of apology and promises to reexamine its standards and procedures so as to never screw up so badly again. The next Zionist war pops up and, like an alcoholic who just can’t resist another drink, the Times, still not run by grayhounds, has Miller’s old aluminum tubes writing partner, Michael Gordon, use the classic Judy Miller style to spew the same type of lies. This time they got caught, and mocked, and even had to resort to telling the truth. Picking Michael Gordon, of all people, to write the article actually looks like an act of sabotage by some editor ordered from upstairs to print more Zionist propaganda.

Monday, February 12, 2007

From an opinion piece in USA Today (!) by Oliver "Buzz" Thomas (emphasis in red):

“I visited the West Bank City of Ramallah shortly after Israel began building its so-calledsecurity fence separating Israel from the Palestinian territories. I had been invited by a group of prominent Israeli and Palestinian women (including several members of the Israeli legislature) who are part of the Global Peace Initiative of Women. Although I had ministered in the roughest parts of New Orleans, what I saw in Ramallah shocked me. It looked like Berlin after World War II. As I listened to the stories of the Palestinian women gathered at our hotel, the pro-Israel lens through which I had always viewed the Middle East grew clouded. There were stories of the houses and olive orchards that had been bulldozed to make room for the new wall and of the hundreds of checkpoints that kept law-abiding Palestinians from getting to their jobs or to and from school. I watched as a young Israeli soldier harassed an elderly man who was trying to get his donkey cart through one checkpoint. I wanted to throw up.

One story in particular stood out, probably because the young woman who told it reminded me of my own daughters. The woman, in her early 20s, had recently graduated from Birzeit University and moved to Ramallah to pursue a career in accounting. Days before my arrival, she had come home to find Israeli soldiers occupying her apartment building. They told her that a suspected terrorist lived in the building and she would not be allowed back inside. Despite her protestations and pleas (finally just to retrieve her personal effects and pictures of her dead father), the four-story building was destroyed. Her furniture, clothing, even her accounting license, were gone.

"I am young," she said, "and I will recover. But for my landlord and his eight children, this building was the only thing they had. Now, they have no choice but to go to the camps."

As I lay in my bed that night, I thought of those eight children and their parents now living in a tent. Even if the Israelis had caught the suspect, someday there very well may be eight young recruits to take his place. Like our ill-fated war in Iraq, Israeli policy seems to create more terrorists than it destroys.

We turned our former Nazi enemies into friends by helping rebuild their war-ravaged nation. Palestinian roads, hospitals and schools have been destroyed. Would we not be wise to try the same strategy with them?”

Wow! He advocates withdrawal of the Israelis and a new American Marshall Plan for the Palestinians. There is not the slightest question that such a move would do more to improve the reputation and position of the United States in the world, not to mention the wealth and safety of its citizens, than any other possible policy. Thomas concludes:

“If God is on anyone's side in this mess, he's on everyone's side. Yes, he is moved to compassion for the jittery Israeli soldier who fears the next person through his checkpoint may be wearing a bomb. But if the New Testament is correct, he is even more heartbroken by the callous treatment of the Palestinians. ‘In so much as you did it to the least of these,’ Jesus said, ‘you did it to me.’ The wretched poor, squatting in the rocks and refugee camps, are God's chosen people, too. It's time we follow John Wesley's advice and start viewing them as such.”

Christians should always remember that the settlers boast that they killed Jesus.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Sometimes people are told that they have an incurable disease, and find it preferable to kill themselves immediately rather than live with the uncertainty of what will happen to them. The Israeli right seems to have fallen into this trap, victims of believing their own ridiculous propaganda regarding the new Holocaust. This despite the fact that the Palestinians, and Muslims in the Middle East generally, are content with the existence of Israel, provided it stays within the 1967 borders. Fortunately, not everybody in Israel is insane. As I have mentioned before, Israel can’t afford to make any mistakes, and an attack on Iran, sure to fail in its military objectives, would so accelerate the demographic problem that the end of Israel would become a self-fulfilling prophesy. It would be ironic if right-wing lies about Iranian intentions led to an Israeli attack which in turn led to the drawn-out, but inevitable, destruction of Israel.

Meanwhile, the Iranians – better diplomats than they are given credit for – are finally sticking it to the Europeans. From an article by M K Bhadrakumar:

“. . . Tehran has signaled to European capitals that they may have to pay a heavy price for any further identification with the US policy toward Iran. The fact that the Iranian proposal on the ‘gas OPEC’ was made by spiritual leader Khamenei should leave Western capitals in no doubt that Tehran is not scoring a propaganda point. They must now rethink before imposing unilateral sanctions on Iran.

Iran is the ‘last frontier’ for European countries seeking to access natural gas from the Middle East. By 2015-20, Europe will face serious gas shortages, even if Russia augments its supplies via the Northern European pipeline. Tehran knows it is a ‘special case’ for European countries. Tehran was hoping all along that it could normalize relations with the European Union, and that it would receive serious economic and political carte blanche.

Khamenei's warning has registered. In an interview with The Financial Times, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said on Tuesday that the international community (read the United States) is ‘lacking imagination’ on Iran. ‘We must show Iran that firstly it has more to lose than gain from an enrichment program that worries the international community, but also that if Iran accepts to respect its international obligations, it has much more to gain than lose,’ he argued.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, ‘Talks on the matter are still possible.’ A meeting between Merkel and Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, on the sidelines of a Munich security conference this weekend is probable in an attempt to break the impasse over the nuclear issue. Germany holds the EU presidency and heads the Group of Eight.”

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for European support for sanctions against Iran.

Europeans have a generally moral attitude towards the Middle East, but their leaders, who don’t even have the Lobby to worry about, continue to take the most immoral position possible with respect to the Palestinians (the ‘diet plan’), and toy with Iran. European leaders have a choice: they can rely entirely for their future energy on the erratic and politically unreliable Russians (as evidenced by recent situations where the European gas supply was almost shut off), or they can leave the option open of using Iranian gas. Iran doesn’t have to sell to Europe: plans are well under way to send gas to India, and even to China. If Europe continues to play footsie with the USraeli threats against yet another sovereign and unthreatening country, Iran has all the reason in the world to play the gas card. Iran and Russia can divide the gas situation up to give each country an effective supply monopoly, causing both much higher prices and, in Europe, constant supply uncertainty. Even if Iranian gas eventually makes it to Europe, now is the time to ensure full Iranian cooperation. If European leaders don’t heed the warnings, and gain Iranian enmity by continuing to tacitly support Zionist aggression, Europeans should start hanging them from the lampposts.

The coming Russian-Iranian-Indian-Pakistani-Chinese gas understanding, largely managed by Gazprom, is yet more proof, if any were needed, that the ‘experts’ are completely out to lunch concerning supposed Bush Administration plans to dominate world hydrocarbon supply. The Bush Administration simply isn’t that motivated, or that competent. I think most errors in analyzing the state of America are based on the idea that it is a stable Empire, or one ascending, instead of what it really is, one in steep decline; the same mistake leads to underestimating the Lobby (with people forgetting that Rasputin had a lot to do with running a rapidly-declining Russia for a while). An American attack against Iran won’t happen, but even if it did, it would have no long-term effect on Iranian energy supply plans, except to confirm the wisdom of building as much power as possible by using its control of where the energy goes.

Are Europeans going to continue to tolerate the immoral Zionist positions of their leadership? Are they ready for a future of freezing in the dark? The Russians are signaling that the aimless American aggression has to stop. Europe’s future is with Russia-Iran; there is no future with the collapsing USrael.

Canada has become the latest country to set up an official Parliamentary Zionist caucus, called the Israel Allies Conference, part of an international campaign by the powerless – at least according to Noam – Lobby (a move criticized by the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians as being bad for Canada, and bad for Jews). When Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay was recently in the Middle East, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas politely met with him, but basically said they had nothing to talk about as Canada had completely abandoned its traditional ‘honest broker’ role. Right wingers in Canada are constantly wringing their hands at the supposed loss of Canadian influence in foreign affairs, but the one-sided Canadian support for Israeli colonialism represents a complete break with all Canadian foreign policy in the last fifty years. Since the Palestinian struggle is symbolic around the world, Canada has now completely excluded itself from having any influence in international politics. Canada has become just another international pariah, a shame because Canada has the unique combination of connections to all the major power blocks (the U. S., the francophone countries, Britain and the Commonwealth, and all the immigrant groups represented in Canada with ties to their home countries), together with a very well-trained corps of diplomats. Canadian foreign policy has gone so bad so quickly, that it has even drawn thescorn (or here) of former Canadian Prime Minister Joe Clark. We can read Clark’s speech as a manifestation of the feelings of the Canadian Establishment, paralleling the efforts of the American Establishment, through people like Carter and Baker, against the pernicious and overwhelming influence of the Lobby.

Now that Hamas and Fatah have amalgamated, essentially adopting the positions of Hamas vis-à-vis Israel, is Canada going to continue to follow the insane USraeli approach to the Palestinians? This approach actually involved a combination of starving the Palestinians while providing arms to Fatah to encourage a Palestinian civil war, and was enthusiastically backed by Canada and Europe.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Things have become so bad that there is actually a professional PR fixer who specializes in getting the Lobby off your back – and thus saving your professional career from utter ruin – should you inadvertently run afoul of Lobby prohibitions on speaking the truth about Israel or Zionism. This is particularly odd as Noam tells us that the Lobby doesn’t exist and has no power.

One of the nominees in the National Book Critics Circle award for this year is an overtly bigoted, in this case Islamophobic, book. It is interesting to look back at advertisements from the first half of the last century and see how obvious much of the racism was, with the people of that time completely oblivious to it (this material is now sought after by collectors). We are currently at the same phase with respect to hatred of Muslims, with some people, particularly in the United States, unaware that there is even an issue. Of course, there is a small Zionist industry devoted to producing this type of material. The author of the book in question is openly gay, and seems to be trying a kind of Pim Fortuyn approach to the issue (the movement we might call ‘Homofascism’). The general approach of all these guys (and MEMRI too), is to take the most outrageous examples from the craziest Islamist writers, and assume those opinions are held by the entire Muslim community.

It is even more curious to note that the average American doesn’t tend to suffer from this artificially-created Zionist intolerance, as witness the survey on whether it would bother people to have Muslims as neighbors. In this case, it is the chattering classes, the so-called American ‘intelligentsia’, who find the bigotry invisible. Twenty years from now, when American support for Israel is seen as the biggest mistake in American history, all these Islamophobic books will be looked at in much the same way that we look at the old racist ads from one hundred years ago. They are already dated propaganda for a dying political idea.

Friday, February 09, 2007

Despite massive – massive – work by the Lobby and its organs to encourage Islamophobia in North America, the effort is failing. From the National Post (the world’s worst newspaper, and winner of the 2006 Error of the Year):

“Canadians are least likely among citizens of 23 western countries to have bigoted attitudes toward Muslims, according to a new international study that measured the level of ‘Islamophobia’ in each nation.

More than 32,000 respondents from 19 European countries, plus Canada, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand, were asked the question: ‘Would you like to have a person from this group as your neighbour?’

Of the nearly 2,000 people surveyed in Canada only 6.5 per cent said they would not like to live beside a Muslim. Respondents in Greece (20.9 per cent), Belgium (19.8), Norway (19.3) and Finland (18.9) were most likely to answer ‘No’ to the question.

Results in Britain and the U.S. were 14.1 per cent and 10.9 per cent respectively, and the average percentage of negative responses across all western countries was 14.5 per cent.”

Note the relatively low result for the U. S. as well. The Head Jew is no doubt giving Daniel Pipes a good flogging for incompetence. Canada, whose results probably have a connection to its secularism, isn’t so friendly to homosexuals:

“Canadians ranked among the most tolerant nations in each of those categories, as well. Fewer than five per cent of respondents from Canada said they wouldn’t want to have a neighbour who is Jewish, an immigrant or of a different race.

Homosexuals were more likely than any other group – in Canada and nearly every other country – to be shunned by a potential neighbour. Just over 17 per cent of Canadians said they would not want a gay person living next door; the overall percentage for western nations was 19.6, with Italy (28.7) and Sweden (six per cent) at the opposite ends of the range.”

I wonder if they studied what people thought of having gay Muslim neighbors.

Despite massive – massive – work by the Lobby and its organs to encourage Islamophobia in North America, the effort is failing. From the National Post (the world’s worst newspaper, and winner of the 2006 Error of the Year):

“Canadians are least likely among citizens of 23 western countries to have bigoted attitudes toward Muslims, according to a new international study that measured the level of ‘Islamophobia’ in each nation.

More than 32,000 respondents from 19 European countries, plus Canada, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand, were asked the question: ‘Would you like to have a person from this group as your neighbour?’

Of the nearly 2,000 people surveyed in Canada only 6.5 per cent said they would not like to live beside a Muslim. Respondents in Greece (20.9 per cent), Belgium (19.8), Norway (19.3) and Finland (18.9) were most likely to answer ‘No’ to the question.

Results in Britain and the U.S. were 14.1 per cent and 10.9 per cent respectively, and the average percentage of negative responses across all western countries was 14.5 per cent.”

Note the relatively low result for the U. S. as well. The Head Jew is no doubt giving Daniel Pipes a good flogging for incompetence. Canada, whose results probably have a connection to its secularism, isn’t so friendly to homosexuals:

“Canadians ranked among the most tolerant nations in each of those categories, as well. Fewer than five per cent of respondents from Canada said they wouldn’t want to have a neighbour who is Jewish, an immigrant or of a different race.

Homosexuals were more likely than any other group – in Canada and nearly every other country – to be shunned by a potential neighbour. Just over 17 per cent of Canadians said they would not want a gay person living next door; the overall percentage for western nations was 19.6, with Italy (28.7) and Sweden (six per cent) at the opposite ends of the range.”

I wonder if they studied what people thought of having gay Muslim neighbors.

Anna Nicole Smith went tits up yesterday (genius ‘obituary’, particularly the last paragraph, here). The conspiracy theories are flying that it was murder. Hundreds of millions of dollars in play, her 20–year-old son ‘overdoses’ on a quantity of drugs which the autopsy says was insufficient to kill him, and now, a few months later, she dies of another ‘overdose’. People tend to put things together (except there were probably no overdoses, and the paternity of her baby becomes the critical point). There were apparently seven minutes between a private nurse's 911 call and the time her bodyguard started CPR.

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Robert Fisk, the best real Western journalist working in the Middle East, is consistently awful in writing about Lebanon, due to his friendship for Hariri and the Hariri clan. The facts on the ground are so obvious, however, that he finally seems to be getting it. It is almost unheard of to read a class-based analysis (or here) of politics in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the Globe and Mail is caught red-handed in Zionist propaganda, publishing a series of articles gap-jawed with amazement about what is happening in Lebanon, while barely mentioning the root cause, the attack by Israel. It is like writing a novel in English without using the letter ‘e’.

An excellent list by Amira Hass of prohibitions on Palestinians imposed by Israel. Zionists would have you believe that these prohibitions are a sort of unfortunate accident, caused by various Arab failings and crimes. Actually, as Stephen Lendman points out (or here or here), referring to Jeff Halper’s concept of the Israeli "Matrix of Control", they are part of a conspiracy to achieve ethnic cleansing.

More Stephen Lendman, this time a long and informative review of Ilan Pappe’s latest book, on the background and mechanics of the Nakba and its relationship to today’s ethnic cleansing operation against the Palestinians. Again, this was no accident, but was part of a careful Zionist conspiracy going back at least to the 1930’s. All we are seeing now is the completion of the same, very old, plan. The conspiracy was well hidden, first by having the historical record intentionally unexamined, and then by the careful building of an Israeli creation myth, fostered by such writers as Leon Uris, and bolstered by Zionist Hollywood. We are still waiting for the day when Nakba Revisionism is a crime.

Speaking of secrets, the Pentagon just loves its secret air wars, and there is one going on now, a big one, against the civilians of Iraq. Knowing about the violence from the air might help to explain why there is so much violence on the ground. Of course, the American media won’t touch this, as the idea that the problems in Iraq might be caused by American military planners, rather than by crazed Muslims, is incomprehensible.

An interview by Silvia Cattori with Daniele Ganser on NATO’s role in the strategy of tension in Europe. Of course, the ‘war on terror’ is just the extension of the strategy of tension around the world.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Google has a ‘Jew’ problem. The word ‘Jew’ in English has a faint but quite distinct pejorative connotation. That means that websites which are overtly anti-Semitic tend to use the word ‘Jew’ prominently, which entails that Google searches featuring the word ‘Jew’ turn up some rather hair-raising results at the top of the list, through no fault of Google. Thus the need for an apology/explanation (note the URL: this is Google’s main – sole? – ‘explanation’ for its search results).

‘Jewish’, on the other hand, is fine, with no connotations. Maybe we should reserve the word ‘Jew’ for those who deserve all the pejorative connotations. We are now – finally! – starting to see arebellioninthe Jewish community against those who purport to speak for all Jewish people. The ‘silent majority’ is starting to wake up and realize that the proposals of the mainstream Jewish establishment are completely insane, and will necessarily, and sooner rather than later, lead to disaster for the Jewish people and the state of Israel. The Jewish Billionaires who are behind the insanity and who sponsor the most prominent ‘Jews’ have their own agenda, which seems to consist primarily in demonstrating, using Israel as a toy, how much power they can throw around by influencing the decisions of Western governments. This game has reached crisis proportions with the current madness over attacking Iran. This plan is so obviously evil and reckless, endangering Israel, the Jewish people, and the entire world, that it has provoked what I hope is the beginning of a rebellion against the schemes of the ‘Jews’.

It’s high time for the Jewish people, and everybody else, to intellectually ‘divest’ from the Jewish Billionaires and their spokesmen, the ‘Jews’. The ‘Jews’ are easily identifiable. Dershowitz: Jew. Pipes: Jew. Podhoretz, father and son: Jews. Perle: Jew. Ledeen: Jew. Kristol, father and son: Jews. Foxman: Jew. Wolfowitz: Jew. Abrams: Jew. Feith: Jew. The two Wurmsers: Jews. The list goes on and on (I don’t mean to insult anybody by leaving them off my list!). Some of these people may very well be Jewish, but that is irrelevant to their essential evil as ‘Jews’. I note that the main opponents of Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity are Jewish (someday these people will be recognized for their courage in the face of community pressure).

It is in the interests of everybody, especially the Israelis and the wider Jewish community, to stabilize the position of Israel in the Middle East. That means an end to Zionist imperialism and militarism. Zionist imperialism and militarism is fostered by the Jewish Billionaires (and the Christian Zionists who wish to start the Apocalypse using Israel). Israel wouldn’t take the insane positions it takes were it not for the goading of the Jews, especially those in North America. If all the ‘Iran talk’ serves any purpose, one would hope that it includes the creation of a wider Jewish consensus against the positions of the Jews.

Monday, February 05, 2007

both lived the high life in luxury hotels while they awaited their respective missions;

both (mostly) used fake identities;

both showed deplorably sloppy tradecraft, making it easy for local authorities to track them down;

both committed the crime of kidnapping as part of the rendition process.

The 9–11 hijacking crew was also large (19), lived more frugally than the CIA agents (but also had bouts of excess), used fake identities, were very sloppy (but less so than the CIA agents), and were in place preparing to commit a crime. The differences seem to be connected with the fact that the rendition missions were conducted outside of the United States, leading to a reduced need for building walls between American officialdom and its thug employees.

I don’t want to over-generalize, but there was a sea change in the conduct of American conspiracies after Iran-Contra. It became apparent that it was impossible to claim any kind of plausible deniability if the apprehended conspirators were government employees, or obviously working for government employees. Ollie North was dangerously close to Reagan-Bush. People went to jail, or almost went to jail. The old method of ‘hiding in plain sight’ by having the media cast a trail of disinformation was no longer safe. It was thus decided to contract out the actual workings of the conspiracies. The conspirators in government would hire a third party contractor to hire the criminals and run the operation. If anyone was caught, there would be no easy way to tie the conspiracy back to anyone in the American government. I note that the history of this idea goes back to using organized crime to commit crimes for government agents, a method which didn’t always work very well.

The opening attempt at the new kind of conspiracy was the first attack on the World Trade Center. The contracting out worked, but FBI connection to the conspiracy led to a lot of questions being asked. A more successful example was Oklahoma City, but again it took intentional blindness by the mainstream media to avoid seeing the many inconsistencies in the Official Story. Andy Strassmeier was a loose end that was dealt with by just ignoring him. Timothy McVeigh was, however, your classic ‘new conspiracy’ employee, with no obvious links to anyone important.

By the time we got to September 11, they had polished up the workings of the second kind of conspiracy. There were still a lot of problems, which were dealt with by having the mainstream media avoid looking too closely (Hopsicker reports that Florida witnesses were told by the FBI not to talk to anyone about what they knew). The key point of the ‘new conspiracy’ remains that there is no way to connect any of the identified criminals with any government authorities. The wall is created by having a contractor run the conspiracy.

The JFK assassination isn’t a good model for understanding September 11, as it is the main example of the old kind of conspiracy. The CIA rendition teams in Milan and Munich are closer to the old model, sloppy and easy to tie back to the American government, probably because nobody in the United States feared any domestic political consequences if the conspirators were caught.

The new model conspiracy is a tough nut to crack, but not impossible. It has to be attacked by professional investigators working from both ends. With the exception of the small amount of money sent to Atta in order to implicate Pakistan, we have no real information about the mechanics of how the conspiracy was funded. People make mistakes, and a proper forensic operation may be able to tie the funding back to a specific military or intelligence contractor. At the same time, we know who the high-level government conspirators are, based on the results flowing from the attack and the motives for the attack (they are not just in the Bush Administration, but constitute the continuity of neoconservatism in American government which we didn’t realize existed until recently). Using a matrix tying these people to specific figures in the contracting community should allow a list of suspects to be created, which can then be compared to any information discovered about funding, and any information concerning the real identities of the hijackers and their past associates and employment history. It is not too late for a professional police team to do a proper investigation, but where is the political will to make it happen?

Sunday, February 04, 2007

What has been described as a law against Holocaust denial is actually a law that goes much further. The proposal, to be made by Germany to the EU, criminalizes questioning the extent of any war crimes that have taken place in the past twenty years (it refers to the crimes in the Statute of the International Criminal Court; for background, see also this pdf).

Deborah Lipstadt, who portrays herself as an advocate of free speech (!), is against it. No wonder. The Europeans have another treat for the Jews. Since Zionism is an ongoing war crime against the Palestinian people, the law would effectively make Zionism a crime in Europe.

The United States recently forced a resolution through the UN General Assembly rejecting Holocaust denial, a move obviously directed as an attack against Iran. It is curious that nobody raised the objection that any such resolution should condemn all types of genocide denial. Iran is one of the few countries in the world that recognizes the ArmenianGenocide.

Friday, February 02, 2007

I’ve said this before, but it is starting to become too obvious to ignore: the Bush Administration has no omnibus plan to dominate the world’s energy supplies. They’re not seeking oil in South America, they’re not seeking oil in Africa, and they are messing up oil supplies from the Middle East. Even Iraq had nothing to do with oil (the evidence that it did, Cheney’s much discussed plans, came from Richard Mellon Scaife’s Judicial Watch, meaning that the revelations were actually a trick). The ‘experts’ continue to repeat old ideas – from the 70’s? – that the Americans are on a cold-war mission to ‘encircle’ the Russians and parry the Chinese, but it is the Russians and Chinese who are getting all the hydrocarbons (Russia already has them, and the Chinese are constantly doing the diplomacy – notably not the Bush Administration’s strong suit – to sew up whatever oil there is in the world). So what is the Big Plan?

Canada (and Mexico and, after an assassination or two, Venezuela). The Canadian oil sands are of a comparable size to Saudi reserves, and the Americans intend to suck them dry. Since the environmental effects of this won’t go over well with the increasingly green Canadian electorate, Canada will have to give up the last vestiges of its sovereignty. This explains the semi-secret high-level meetings to create a North American unitary government (starting with a continental energy policy). Once it is in place, the Americans will also help themselves to the water.

The environment problem is a big one. Extracting oil from oil sands requires a tremendous amount of energy, thus creating a fatal addition to world-wide greenhouse gases. Exploiting the oil sands to the extent required by the Americans will end any chance of saving the world (assuming that chance is not already gone):

“Canada, the No. 1 oil exporter to the United States already, was urged to increase its production of crude from oil sands from 1 million barrels a day to 5 million barrels a day.”

That’s just a start, to establish the concept that the Americans can order production if and when they feel like it, without regard to Canadian laws. There is a sad lack of opposition to this. Dick Cheney would much rather deal with a compliant Canada – the Calgary oil men are exactly like, and sometimes are, the Texas oil men he is comfortable with – than with some crazy Middle Eastern guys in robes.

The Conservative government in Canada has effectively renounced Kyoto, for the simple reason that extraction of the oil from the oil sands is impossible under Kyoto. The Liberal opposition sees the advantage in forcing the issue, as the Conservatives can’t possibly give in. We’re now seeing the Canadian government pretend to take a ‘green’ approach to governing (with the connivance of the embarrassing NDP, which may be destroyed in the next election), and hoping to fool the electorate (it doesn’t appear to be working). ‘Fast tracking’ environmental assessments is a nice way of saying there won’t be any real environmental assessments.

The United States can’t invade Canada – too many white people – but it doesn’t need to. With the Canadian government one third in the pocket of the American government, one third in the pocket of the Calgary oil barons (to show how bad it is, the plan is to privatize Canada’s collection of national portraits, so they can be shown off in the head office of a Calgary pipeline company!; can you imagine any other country doing that?), and one third in the pocket of the Jewish Billionaires Club (I note that the Canada oil plan conforms to the Zionist plan to remove the ‘oil weapon’ from opponents of Zionist colonialism), there simply isn’t any room left for the government of Canada to look out for the interests of Canadians. It’s not just Canadians who will pay the price, as the upshot of the degree of oil sands exploitation anticipated by the Bush Administration – it’s the only plan they have, or Americans freeze in the dark – is the destruction of the world.